Timeline for Is there a "special look" to images from large sensors that can't be replicated with a smaller one?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2015 at 13:44 | comment | added | Fumidu | @MattGrum Ok, I think I understand now. What you are saying is true only if the photo can be correctly exposed. Now imagine the smaller sensor taking a photo of a bright red flower. It means lots of red light, and little blue and green. Maybe you have to chose between burning the red channel, and losing the blue and green, because of the limited DR. Ok, you chose to burn the red channel. Then, same picture with bigger sensor, stopping down as requested. You will get the same information on the blue and green channels, but MORE on the red one, as it is less easily burnt. Does it make sense? | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 13:15 | comment | added | Matt Grum | @Fumidu stopping down to increase depth of field to match a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light per unit area, thus you have increased noise and decreased dynamic range. Compare DR, colour depth etc. plots of cameras at ISO 400 and ISO 1600. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 9:34 | comment | added | Fumidu | I'm not sure I understand the link between dof and colour depth. Some sensor have a dynamic range of 8bits, some other 11, or 14 bits. It's a physical characteristic and it's measurable. If I understand what you say, the colour depth can be affected by the depth of field? I'm sorry if I'm once again off-topic, but I really think that a better colour resolution if a characteristic of bigger sensor, and that it can affect the look of the picture, even if, as you said, only expert can appreciate the difference. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 9:18 | comment | added | Matt Grum | Again, like every other answer here it completely ignores the last paragraph of the question which states depth of field must be the same, this the larger format lens has to be stopped down. Once you do this all the advantages you state, such as better colour depth, disappear. The link you provide is irrelevant as it's talking about a completely different case where you keep the f-ratio (and not the entrance pupil) the same. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 8:50 | history | edited | Fumidu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 267 characters in body
|
| Feb 25, 2015 at 8:35 | comment | added | Fumidu | You're right, it needs more explanations: it allows to have better color depth. For example, you can have more details on a bright red flower. With a smaller sensor, it will be uniformly red. With a big sensor, you will have more details and texture and micro-contrast instead of fully saturated red. | |
| Feb 25, 2015 at 8:29 | comment | added | chuqui | no, not really. that's a different discussion. | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 22:55 | comment | added | mattdm | Theory aside, though, does this actually contribute meaningfully to a visibly-distinct "special look"? | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 22:30 | comment | added | Fumidu | Look at the link I added to my answer, it explains everything. | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 22:30 | history | edited | Fumidu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 126 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2015 at 18:26 | comment | added | Anentropic | "A bigger pixel can store more information"... logically false | |
| Feb 24, 2015 at 17:52 | history | answered | Fumidu | CC BY-SA 3.0 |